It looks like more of the same to me. I don't think it looks all that different to Battlefield 3 either, the campaign in that looked as good.

I'm really sick of the over the top modern shooters, it's been done to death now.

I agree. Sure, looks pretty - but it is going to run like **** on about 99% of people's systems!Heck, I have an Intel Core i5-3570K 3.4GHz, Radeon HD 7850 XFX DD 2GB Black Edition and 16 GB DDR3 1600MHz RAM and BF3 struggles still at 1920x1080 res.

Personally, Far Cry 3 and Tomb Raider got it right for me - loved both of the stories and how they played. Games like BFx, MWx just regurgitate the same macho American army dude scenario time and time again. HUUURAAAAY we are hardcore elite squad who kick everything in the nuts then frag out!Just gets a bit boring after a while.

I agree. Sure, looks pretty - but it is going to run like **** on about 99% of people's systems!Heck, I have an Intel Core i5-3570K 3.4GHz, Radeon HD 7850 XFX DD 2GB Black Edition and 16 GB DDR3 1600MHz RAM and BF3 struggles still at 1920x1080 res.

Wow really? I have an i7 3770 3.4 Ghz, Radeon HD 7770 Ghz Edition 2GB and 6GB of RAM, BF3 runs at around 50FPS on high. It sits around 30FPS on Ultra but sometimes dips to 25 in high action moments to I play on high.

Apparently they have been able to optimize the engine much more with the new Frostbite 3 engine, so hopefully the game might run better than BF3.

When we built this engine, I think we already felt when we did Battlefield 3 with Frostbite 2 that it was kind of a power horse. It had enormous potential. We talked then about next-generation technology on the current generation of platforms, and I still have that feeling that we've done so many tech improvements in that engine that are, in many ways, just making things look more beautiful for a cheaper cost.

I agree. Sure, looks pretty - but it is going to run like **** on about 99% of people's systems!Heck, I have an Intel Core i5-3570K 3.4GHz, Radeon HD 7850 XFX DD 2GB Black Edition and 16 GB DDR3 1600MHz RAM and BF3 struggles still at 1920x1080 res.

So what's the excuse to how my Phenom II X4, 4GB DDR2 RAM, 9800GTX runs the game just fine @ 1680x1050?

This is the problem with PC gaming; some people act like you need a god box. No, I bought my machine for roughly $400-500, and I play Battlefield 3 just fine on decent enough settings that still blows current generation console graphics out of the water. All I can suggest is to try to tweak something because to me, that just doesn't sound right that I'm having such an amazing time with the game while yours is somehow "incapable"... Not every game needs to be supped up to high.

Sorry if I sound annoyed, it's just that I personally love Battlefield 3 because it looks amazing and isn't a miserable experience, compared to other games that choke even on low settings due to poor optimization.

But whatever, EA is behind it, and all they want is to go toe-to-toe with CoD. Greedy f***ing b******.

I don't care for EA either but... they're releasing a sequel 2 years after Battlefield 3, not a sequel every year like CoD. Their DLC also doesn't blow ass compared to what Activision and [Treyarch/Infinity Ward] offer.

I don't care for EA either but... they're releasing a sequel 2 years after Battlefield 3, not a sequel every year like CoD. Their DLC also doesn't blow ass compared to what Activision and [Treyarch/Infinity Ward] offer.

Not really. They do it annually as well. They just rotate between BF and Medal of Honor.

So what's the excuse to how my Phenom II X4, 4GB DDR2 RAM, 9800GTX runs the game just fine @ 1680x1050?

This is the problem with PC gaming; some people act like you need a god box. No, I bought my machine for roughly $400-500, and I play Battlefield 3 just fine on decent enough settings that still blows current generation console graphics out of the water. All I can suggest is to try to tweak something because to me, that just doesn't sound right that I'm having such an amazing time with the game while yours is somehow "incapable"... Not every game needs to be supped up to high.

Sorry if I sound annoyed, it's just that I personally love Battlefield 3 because it looks amazing and isn't a miserable experience, compared to other games that choke even on low settings due to poor optimization.

I don't care for EA either but... they're releasing a sequel 2 years after Battlefield 3, not a sequel every year like CoD. Their DLC also doesn't blow ass compared to what Activision and [Treyarch/Infinity Ward] offer.

I think my point is, that yes I can turn down the graphics to medium or whatever, but a 2 year old game on new hardware (ok. not a super hot gfx card) it should be able to play on Ultra with a high fps.

I guess at the res I run it at, on the settings I have it set to - I was expecting more... and if BF4 is going to be more intensive then it is just crapping over everything else. Tomb Raider looks great and runs beautifully with all settings maxed out. I know, different engines but I really feel that a lot of these engines aren't optimised enough and are sloppily coded.

I think my point is, that yes I can turn down the graphics to medium or whatever, but a 2 year old game on new hardware (ok. not a super hot gfx card) it should be able to play on Ultra with a high fps.

I guess at the res I run it at, on the settings I have it set to - I was expecting more... and if BF4 is going to be more intensive then it is just crapping over everything else. Tomb Raider looks great and runs beautifully with all settings maxed out. I know, different engines but I really feel that a lot of these engines aren't optimised enough and are sloppily coded.

My machine just turned 3 and I run it on ultra all, 1080, 40+ fps, no oc